Defending Her Honor

Jonahnah,

Never in history has anger solved anything or achieved anything meaningful! No one says women, gays, African Americans should just blow everything off. But there is a big difference between being angry and not standing for something, or take a stance against something. Anger ALWAYS triggers hatred, bitterness, defensiveness and results in divisiveness.

In fact, I found your remarks towards Stephanie angry and insulting.
 
It seems pretty idealistic to say anger had nothing to do with oppressed people demanding and fighting for their rights in the past. Where would we be if no one ever got angry? About being a slave, about being denied voting rights?

Unfortunately for Clinton, she's told to suck it up and play with the boys. Were Obama subject to a racist remark about being African American, I doubt anyone would suggest he quit whining and learn how to play with the white boys.

I can only hope that by the next time we have a female candidate, taking ignorant sexist shots (currently viewed as harmless and funny) is considered just as taboo as cheap ignorant shots against other groups.
 
Well, maybe I am an idealist. I just would like to know when in history anger has ever achieved anything good.

To me anger is an uncontrolled, reactive emotion which I associate with hostility, lose ones temper, retaliation, intimidation, hate and violence. Anger clouds people's judgement, results in rash actions and people losing sight of the fact that despite of the disagreement the opponent is still a human being. Angery rhetoric or angry/violent actions ALWAYS trigger an angry response and things spiral downwards from there, creating more divisiveness. Anger results in anger, hatred results in hatred and violence results in violence.

People can and do successfully stand up for their rights, fight for a better world, resist oppression without being "angry" or violent. I think that social or political change cannot be achieved through angry rhetoric but instead acknowledging the counter part as a valuable human being who is entitled to their opinion, and try to change it through education, discussion and persuasion. It usually is a long process and does not happen overnight.

Martin Luther King was a prime example for advocating messured responses and non-violent or non-aggressive resistance. Instead of humiliating the opponent, his goal was to gain the opponents' friendship and understanding. If it wasn't for MLK's non-violent approach, I don't believe the changes would have taken place. Although there still is a long way to go.

Nelson Mandela and his followers brought the South African apartheid regime to an end, while speaking up, not through angry rethoric but peaceful resistance. It was not the "angry" Jews that brought Adolf Hitler and his cronies to their knees but the quiet resistance that had formed, city-by-city and country-by-country, which eventually resulted in international support and the end of the German Third Reich and the Nazi regime.

In oppose to that look at Cuba, what has angry rhetoric and stifling embargos achieved in 50 years? Look at Israel and Palestine, where is the continued anger and violence getting them? Suicide bombers and retaliation, more granates thrown and women and children caught in the middle being bombed.

I suggest that our current government's saber rattling and offensive rhetoric has NOT gotten us anywhere good. Where has Iraq gotten us? More violence and anti-American sentiments, turning into a vicious cycle.

As to the comment "Were Obama subject to a racist remarks about being African American, I doubt anyone would suggest he quit whining and learn how to play with the white boys", what do you mean "were Obama subject to racist remarks", he IS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouKJixL--ms, look on youtube, there are hundreds of videos of people being interviewed saying they will NOT vote for a black guy, he is a Muslim, anti-American, the antichrist, Hitler ..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-q4MDQ0cDI. Google Assassinate Obama and it comes up in the top 100 google searches. I haven't heard him complain about any of this.

Going back to sexism, women cannot win this battle by engaging in angry rhetoric, finger pointing and whining. I am not going to waste my breathe arguing with the stupidity of the Tucker Carlsons, Glenn Becks and many others of this world. This will give the sexists of this country more amunition. We will win or overcome this by rising above the stupid remarks, beat them at their own game and prove them wrong.

However, I still refuse to get caught up in petty stuff like is it sexist for a guy to call a woman "sweetie", "dear" "honey" or "hey, can you bring me some coffee". And I am trying to not lose sight of the big picture by enganging in and sweating the small stuff.

I think today, for the first time in a long time, I have seen the Hillary Clinton back that I have always admired, an admiration that I lost in the primaries. No fingerpointing, no whining, no blaming, just "today we know we have put 18 Mio cracks in the glass ceiling and the light is shining through".

For clarification sexist shots are NOT harmless or funny to me, neither are racist, or otherwise demeaning remarks.
 
To clarify, I distinguish between "anger" and "angry rhetoric"- the former as an honest, sometimes inevitable and healthy human emotion, the latter as calculated and strategic persuasion of others. While intelligent argument doesn't abuse the use of anger, I think it's a natural human reaction to feel angry when you see another human being treated unfairly. I'd find it very hard to believe that none of the Holocaust victims, none of the slaves, and none of the oppressed South Africans, etc. ever felt anger towards those that tortured, humiliated, and murdered them.
 

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top